SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
By James Wesley, Rawles
January 21, 2010

http://survivalblog.com/

Introductory Note: I recently wrote this critique for British newspaper. For the benefit of my readers in the US, I'm posting it to my blog. - JWR

The recently released movie The Road, based on the same-titled novel by award-winning writer Cormac McCarthy illustrated some classic blunders in bushcraft and tactical movement. Doubtless, many of these gaffes were intentional--I suspect for the sake of drama, or to provide enough light for the night scenes.

Here is a short list:

1.) Following main arterial roads. In a post-collapse environment, major roads will become linear ambush zones. To avoid trouble, �The Man" and "The Boy" should have traveled overland, or on only the smallest roads and trails.

2.) Lighting large campfires. Large campfires were repeatedly lit at night, under circumstances where it was very important to avoid detection. "Cold camps" or at least using small tin can stoves would have been much more appropriate!

I don't want to reveal any "spoilers", but suffice it to say, in the highly inimical circumstances depicted in the movie, the last thing that "The Man" should have done was to light up a big "Here I am" beacon each night!

3.) No security precautions when sleeping. With not enough manpower to provide a night watch, they would have very likely "woken up dead". Some intrusion detection systems are very low tech or even "no tech." For example, they could have easily set up trip wires attached to empty tin cans to provide a noise-making perimeter security for their campsites.

Better yet, they should have teamed up with at least one more adult, so that they could have taken turns at keeping watch.

4.) Ignoring basic camouflage. By wearing clothing in relatively bright colors, they greatly increased their chances of being detected. Their outer layers should have been all earth tones. They also left their bare faces showing. In the cold weather depicted, they should have been wearing earth-tone balaclavas. This would have provided both warmth and better camouflage.

5.) Failure to provide adequate rain protection. A couple of lightweight tarps at night, and earth tone ponchos worn during the day would have kept "The Man" and "The Boy" much dryer and warmer.

6.) Not making improvised weapons. �The Man� was depicted as having a revolver with only a very few cartridges. Yet, he did nothing to provide other weapons for self-defense. Even a sharpened stick with its point hardened in a fire would have been better than nothing.

7.) Leaving a safe well-stocked shelter prematurely. Again, I don't want to reveal a "spoiler", but suffice it to say, at one point �The Man� and �The Boy� are ensconced in a dry, safe, and well-stocked shelter. Leaving that shelter when they did was a mistake. They left behind many useful supplies. They should have foraged in the vicinity longer, and put on more weight before resuming their journey.

Despite these gaffes, the film is still worth seeing, and I even more highly recommend reading McCarthy�s novel.

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

Does the movie or novel claim the hero and his companion are survivalist? I havent any experience with either version so I dont know. If they were just regular folks, these may not be oversights, but part of the plotline itself.

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

interesting comments, but the survivalblog guy missed the point... they never were described as survivalist types by the author.

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

I think you're missing the point. A lot of people's perception of reality comes from the media. Whether or not they were survivalists, they were in a bad situation. He's trying to educate people on basic survival if they find themselves in that kind of situation, not be Roger Ebert.

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

He forgot to mention that the book/movie took place 10 YEARS after the disaster event.

10 years without sun... no animals, no plants, no nothing.

the reason they were in relative safety at night, was in the book, it was pitch black. As in you can't see your hand in front of your face black.

there were no batteries left for flashlights, so people moving around at night was a very small risk.

yes traveling by road is a mistake, that is why at the end, the man that was following them say to the boy, "you don't know how lucky you are to be alive, you have to stay off the road with us"

The book more focuses on the mans paranoia. After 10 years of killing people, defending your wife and child, he is extremely jittery. After all, this is why the Wife killed herself. The boy highlights this by saying "you don't even know who's good and bad anymore"

I think it does a good job highlighting the mans haphazard nature. This is forced in the end by the true "survivalist" catching up to them. He has a rifle, 3 people to take care of and a whole bandoleer of ammo.

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

That much is obvious. But that is not why the book and movie were made. He might as well comment on the survival skills of Conan the Barbarian.

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

At least Conan knew what was good in life!

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

Re: SurvivalBlog: A Brief Critique of the Movie "The Road"
 

Yes, and he still does!